Philosophy is the observation of being.nothing wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 12:28 amJust as belief is not actually knowledge, philosophy is not actually science.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm (Propositional) knowledge being justified true belief is a standard philosophical view going all the way back to Plato at least. So there's nothing "new age" about it. It's a view that goes back almost 2500 years, and that has persisted until the present. In fact, it's one of the least controversial, most persistent philosophical views.
You need to at least attempt to justify your position.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm "Knowledge" doesn't imply certainty, by the way, and "belief" doesn't imply a lack of certainty.
Knowledge affords one the capacity to make predictions which turn out to be "true" to no degree(s) of uncertainty.
That's the practical utility of science: to make accurate predictions.
Belief, conversely, carries no such certainty as the "believer" is themselves uncertain (!)
If they had true knowledge, they would not "believe" for being certain of the outcome(s).
Replace "but" with "therefor" and add "merely" such to be proper:Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm Re common language usage, it makes little sense to say something like, "I know that the Earth revolves around the sun, but I do not believe that the Earth revolves around the sun." If you said something like that in a casual conversation people would think you're incoherent if not fit for a loony bin.
"I know that the Earth revolves around the sun, therefor I do not merely believe that the Earth revolves around the sun."
If one believe the earth goes around the sun, it can only be so because the "believer" is themselves uncertain.
If they were certain, they would know the earth revolves around the sun and "belief" is rendered redundant.
You shouldn't speak on behalf of others - only speak for yourself. I don't care what other people "think"
& likewise don't care for your attempts to tacitly imply those who think not like you are fit for a loony bin.
If P is a definite proposition, P is either: definitely true, or definitely not necessarily.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:33 pm Believing that P is a requirement for knowing that P ("P" is a proposition--(the meaning of) a declarative statement.) But belief isn't sufficient for knowledge. Other requirements are that one has some justification that P, and the third requirement is that P is true. So to know that P, one must believe that P, one must have some justification for P, and P must be true. Hence, justified true belief.
One need not "believe" anything about P - one may simply acknowledge P.
Once P is acknowledged, P can be tried/tested and either "truthified" or "falsified" (to coin the former).
Whichever P is, it is either known to be true or not necessarily.
If one "believes" P is either true or not necessarily, one knows not P.
All-knowing entails knowing all: not to "believe" (ie. any/all propositional beliefs which are not necessarily true).
The problem can be seen in modern-day Western "Philosophy":
All knowing is (in) the negation of all (false) belief. Corrected:All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
All knowing is (by way of) consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all.
Nonsensical.
Yes - he himself doubted it. He had good reason to - it is not necessarily true.
He didn't know how/why it was/is not necessarily true, otherwise he would have known where it breaks down.
It is possible to know how/why GR breaks down (along with Western science as a whole).
No, it's not. I now no longer believe you have a reading comprehension problem(s). I now know it to be true.
Please quote me if you can wherein I stated anything to the effect of:
"...if you believe in a thing, it is necessarily false."
Certain prediction: you can't, because I never once stated anything of the sort.
What I did/do state was/is: if you "believe" something, you do not actually "know" it.
You can "believe" something that happens to be true, however that doesn't necessarily mean you "know" it to be true.
If you actually know something to be true, you can't merely "believe" it - it is a knowledge, not a mere "belief".
The accuser is the accused - this is precisely what you are suffering.
Because you can not account for the same within yourself, you are projecting/externalizing it.
Look:
What apple is to belief, banana is to knowledge.
Where on earth did you get the third parent category "fruit" from?
There is no such parent category to which both knowledge and belief belong.
You effectively introduced your own "category error" by assuming both knowledge and belief have a parent category.
You did this to suit your own a priori assumption that belief and knowledge are "the same". They are not.
They can not be because knowledge negates belief.
What light is to knowledge, dark is to belief:
just as light dispels darkness
knowledge dispels belief-based ignorance(s).
The difference between belief and knowledge is night and day resp.
What you say and what you actually do can be two completely different things.
And that's precisely how/why you wantonly conflate/confuse knowledge with belief.
Thinking something is true is certainly not knowledge - it is just a thought.
It's a very good thing it's not the way you "think" it ought to be.
One need not "think" about it to know what the word means/implies.
Science is observation.
Philosophy is the science of being.